Random Thoughts 2: Arbitrary Speculations

[Zkribbler]

I think the US is literally the only one.

Not true. US Emergency rooms have the duty to "stabilize" patients.

For example, I got an urgent call from a friend of mine to bring his insurance papers to an ER where he had been taken with a broken wrist. Until they got them, all they'd do was to immobilize the wrist & give him a pain killer.

 

[Lexicus]

Not true. US Emergency rooms have the duty to "stabilize" patients.

I'm not sure how this is supposed to refute the point that the US is the only rich country where people go bankrupt because of health problems.

 

[cardgame]

Japan didn't practice globalism but globalism came to japan anyway

compete or be left behind and coerced by the greater powers who have surpassed you

 

[Synobun]

What does that like matter
Just because some countries trade, doesn't mean all have to

You're essentially saying "not following globalisation policies won't lead to globalisation", which, yea
That's kind of the point

You don't "have" to, but stifling progress tends to come with the side effect of not progressing. America isn't its own planet and exists within a global society whether it wants to or not.

 

[Takhisis]

America isn't its own planet

das ist nicht wunderbar

Moderator Action: If you persist in using non-English phrases without an English translation I will begin to delete the offending posts and infract. This is your last warning. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Takhisis]

Translation for the above: ‘that is not wunderbar’.

 

[Zkribbler]

I'm not sure how this is supposed to refute the point that the US is the only rich country where people go bankrupt because of health problems.

%$&*! My bad. I read a heart attack would "leave a person homeless" as a heart attack would "leave a person helpless."

 

[Lohrenswald]

You don't "have" to, but stifling progress tends to come with the side effect of not progressing. America isn't its own planet and exists within a global society whether it wants to or not.

Labeling globalisation as "progress" is an example of the thing IIRC Hrothbern brought up in the TIL thread

 

[Lexicus]

Japan didn't practice globalism but globalism came to japan anyway

compete or be left behind and coerced by the greater powers who have surpassed you

Same problem as Synsensa's. You're just assuming that globalization means progress - ie, assuming what you want to actually make a case for.

I haven't seen any particularly strong economic arguments for why international trade should be so beneficial and so necessary. The theory of comparative advantage is flawed in several important ways for example. And no one has been able to explain why it's more efficient in terms of resources, actually efficient in an economic sense, to ship things all around the world than to keep production and consumption mostly localized in the same place.

 

[BenitoChavez]

Same problem as Synsensa's. You're just assuming that globalization means progress - ie, assuming what you want to actually make a case for.

I haven't seen any particularly strong economic arguments for why international trade should be so beneficial and so necessary. The theory of comparative advantage is flawed in several important ways for example. And no one has been able to explain why it's more efficient in terms of resources, actually efficient in an economic sense, to ship things all around the world than to keep production and consumption mostly localized in the same place.

If you are able to easily produce a large quantity of a particular good, more than what the demand for is in your area, you can ship that good to other places to increase your profits. This seems like it benefits everyone, they get the goods they wouldn't otherwise have and you get the money.

 

[Lexicus]

If you are able to easily produce a large quantity of a particular good, more than what the demand for is in your area, you can ship that good to other places to increase your profits. This seems like it benefits everyone, they get the goods they wouldn't otherwise have and you get the money.

This isn't really specific enough to be a very strong argument. If by "you" you mean an entire country, then as @innonimatu said the "natural" state of affairs would be for the citizens of the country to consume what they produce. In general the population of a country cannot consume what it produces because the extraction of surplus value leaves them unable to do so.

What is really happening is not trade based on comparative advantage. China does not produce the things that it exports so much more efficiently than other countries that it's actually efficient in terms of real resources to e.g. ship components to China for assembly then ship the finished product back overseas than to just assemble the components in their country of origin. The real reason for the huge volume of international trade and investment is that the business elite can profit through arbitrage, ie, due to the enormous differences in prices between Bangladesh and the US or between China and Germany.

Taking advantage of arbitrage benefits the business elite enormously, there's no question of that. But arguments for why it benefits everyone else are lacking.

That is the essence of the global "race to the bottom" and it's why solving the world's economic problems is going to require either the return of capital controls and other protectionist barriers, or an actionable international system to maintain things like labor standards, pollution regulations, etc and ensure that the rich cannot simply go wherever it's easiest to externalize costs.

 

[Synobun]

Same problem as Synsensa's. You're just assuming that globalization means progress - ie, assuming what you want to actually make a case for.

I haven't seen any particularly strong economic arguments for why international trade should be so beneficial and so necessary. The theory of comparative advantage is flawed in several important ways for example. And no one has been able to explain why it's more efficient in terms of resources, actually efficient in an economic sense, to ship things all around the world than to keep production and consumption mostly localized in the same place.

You're certainly welcome to make a thread about this, wherein people can tell you that there is a pretty sizable difference between fractured, isolated nation states and a globalized society, and that one is objectively better than the other. I think it is rich to claim that what we have today and what we'll have tomorrow is doable if you close yourself off from everyone else and just navel gaze instead of collaborating with others. Unless you've gone all Unabomber on us and think what we have today is a problem and that we should go back to toiling away in fields. In which case, I'll gladly take your modern luxuries off your hands.

 

[Lexicus]

You're certainly welcome to make a thread about this, wherein people can tell you that there is a pretty sizable difference between fractured, isolated nation states and a globalized society, and that one is objectively better than the other.

Yeah, everyone can tell me that but judging from this thread it's more of an assumption than a conclusion reached after an evaluation of actual evidence.

I think it is rich to claim that what we have today and what we'll have tomorrow is doable if you close yourself off from everyone else and just navel gaze instead of collaborating with others.

Again....no actual argument, just assuming your conclusion to be true. Personally, I think it is even more rich to claim that it's impossible for the United States to manufacture cell phones or whatever itself.

There is virtually no good that the US currently imports or is reliant on trade for, that it could not produce itself within a few years if we make the necessary investments. That's what having a diverse healthy economy means. The reason the US doesn't manufacture stuff is because the capitalists who control production find it far more profitable to take advantage of the difference between low-wage and high-wage countries, not because the US actually lacks the resources, technical knowledge, and so on to manufacture things.

 

[Synobun]

Why would I bother making an argument in Random Thoughts?

That globalization is a net benefit doesn't mean that the US is physically incapable of producing its own goods.

 

[Lohrenswald]

You're certainly welcome to make a thread about this, wherein people can tell you that there is a pretty sizable difference between fractured, isolated nation states and a globalized society, and that one is objectively better than the other. I think it is rich to claim that what we have today and what we'll have tomorrow is doable if you close yourself off from everyone else and just navel gaze instead of collaborating with others. Unless you've gone all Unabomber on us and think what we have today is a problem and that we should go back to toiling away in fields. In which case, I'll gladly take your modern luxuries off your hands.

Nice going
Saying that there are reasons why globalisation is "objectively better", but not having a single example.

All this about "closing yourself off from everybody else" is rubbish. Individuals need to collaborate, but states don't. States are filled with people who can collaborate with eachother already.

Also, we can have like global cultural exchange without vulture capitalist destroying the planet.

Shoutout to @Lexicus for explaining all this better than me, though

 

[Lexicus]

That globalization is a net benefit doesn't mean that the US is physically incapable of producing its own goods.

That is what you suggest when you say "lol, don't like globalization? then give up your modern luxuries!"

Also, we can have like global cultural exchange without vulture capitalist destroying the planet.

This; globalization need not mean the subordination of democratic politics to globally-mobile capital.

 

[Synobun]

That is what you suggest when you say "lol, don't like globalization? then give up your modern luxuries!"

Not really, my dude.

 

[BenitoChavez]

This isn't really specific enough to be a very strong argument. If by "you" you mean an entire country, then as @innonimatu said the "natural" state of affairs would be for the citizens of the country to consume what they produce. In general the population of a country cannot consume what it produces because the extraction of surplus value leaves them unable to do so.

What is really happening is not trade based on comparative advantage. China does not produce the things that it exports so much more efficiently than other countries that it's actually efficient in terms of real resources to e.g. ship components to China for assembly then ship the finished product back overseas than to just assemble the components in their country of origin. The real reason for the huge volume of international trade and investment is that the business elite can profit through arbitrage, ie, due to the enormous differences in prices between Bangladesh and the US or between China and Germany.

Taking advantage of arbitrage benefits the business elite enormously, there's no question of that. But arguments for why it benefits everyone else are lacking.

That is the essence of the global "race to the bottom" and it's why solving the world's economic problems is going to require either the return of capital controls and other protectionist barriers, or an actionable international system to maintain things like labor standards, pollution regulations, etc and ensure that the rich cannot simply go wherever it's easiest to externalize costs.

Maybe, I'm not really well versed in economics to know if what you say is true or not. All I know is that I can't get strawberries in December unless they come from Mexico.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I like mangoes, oranges and bananas and they don't grow in Germany. I want a bit of globalization.
Cultural differences and approaches to education can also make one nation better at making a certain product, and economies of scale can make it more efficient.
There is however no good reason for countries to export wheat or water to each other, or for the USA to import electronics from China that were designed by American companies. That's just a waste of fuel and an exploitation of lower living standards, and while can raise living stands in the producing countries and make goods cheaper for the importers, it can also drive down wages globally. And that's not even getting into the really nefarious side effects like competition for lower safety and environmental standards.

 

[Lexicus]

All I know is that I can't get strawberries in December unless they come from Mexico.

I like mangoes, oranges and bananas and they don't grow in Germany. I want a bit of globalization.

Yeah, I agree with all this. But I just don't feel like the entire prosperity of the modern world is dependent on being able to get fruit out of season.